Associate Professor Michael Tolley delivered the political science department's annual Constitution Day lecture.
Michael Tolley, associate professor of political science at Northeastern specializing in comparative constitutionalism, began his Constitution Day lecture Thursday by quoting former President Woodrow Wilson from 1908: “Federalism is the basic question of American constitutional law.”
Tolley's lecture, held at Renaissance Park, coincided with the day commemorating the formation and signing of the US Constitution 228 years ago. Examined how the Supreme Court has interpreted federalism—the balance of power between the federal government and the states—in its decisions, focusing specifically on the court's decisions under Chief Justice William Rehnquist (1986–2005) and Chief Justice John Roberts since 2005 .
Here are some highlights from Tolley's speech:
History lesson
Tolley noted that while “federalism is an indisputable thread woven into the fabric of the United States Constitution,” no provision in the text clearly demarcates the boundaries between national government and state sovereignty. While other modern constitutions detail these limits, the US Constitution, he said, is “famously vague” about the nature of that balance.
He said that throughout American political history, the Supreme Court's role in federalism issues has been tied to the political regime of the time. Between the late 1700s and the early 1990s, the tides shifted between eras of national supremacy and dual federalism.
New federalism
Tolley said the legacy of the Rehnquist court was the federalism revolution, which began with a 1992 decision New York v. United States which recognized the 10th Amendment's limitations on the national government's power to compel states to carry out federal mandates. The case involved a federal law that requires states to provide for the disposal of radioactive waste or assume responsibility for waste generated within their borders. The court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that Congress does not have the power to force states to implement regulations.
Another 5-4 decision, this time United States v. Lopez in 1995it was the first since the New Deal in 1937 to limit the power of Congress under the Constitution's commerce clause.
“The Rehnquist court introduced some profound changes to the balance of power between the federal government and the states,” Tolley said.
Roberts Court
Tolley argued that the Roberts court marked its own revolution in federalism, with a sharper shift toward states' rights and sovereignty. And while it continues the Rehnquist court's move in that direction, he said, there have also been “some new and troubling trends as well.”
He pointed to the court's 2011 decision Bond v. United States which recognized that individuals, not just states, could have the right to bring cases challenging national power's encroachment on states' rights.
Later, Tolley described the 5-4 decision at Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 as “the most troubling innovation introduced by the Roberts court”—namely, the doctrine of equality of sovereignty. The court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, effectively nullifying the requirement for states with histories of discrimination to get federal approval to make changes to their election laws.
“Politics students in here should be really worried by this,” he said. “This is likely to present some very serious problems in the coming years.”
-By Greg St. Martin